Teaser

[Muratus del Mur]

[center][size="7"]Eight[/size]

[size="7"]∞[/size]

[i]The opposite of the center[/i]

[/center]





Balance. What means balance? First of all it is a word with many meanings. The word itself could even refer to accounting, or to justice, or stability or sound or other things. When trying to communicate something to someone, first you need to be sure the words you use have the same meaning for the one you try to communicate them too. Excuse me if i assume that you think about the balance i refer to as a good-bad, full-empty, male-female sort of thing. Well, its not that far from what i mean by balance, but it is two complexity levels less than what i will eventually reveal in this book.

A very interesting and accurate meaning of balance is this one:

Balance = desirable point between two or more opposite forces (source Wikipedia)

In general, this is close to the meaning of balance i will need you to understand in order to fully understand the things i will try to describe. I will use on different occasions different wording for balance because it will put more focus on one or the other meaning.

When I was little, my father asked me one day what I think about each thing having its counter, something to balance it, something opposed to it. He talked about things like fire and water, good and bad, but with a certain feeling that there is more to it than just opposing things. He obviously was talking alone and just needed someone to pretend to listen to him and I was the perfect subject for rhetoric talking. I guess he never imagined I will take his question so seriously that 20 years later I would elaborate an entire structure model on how things balance and even do wild experiments with this.

If you are already familiar with my previous book “Mastering the Void” you already know I will not limit this to a simple metaphysical talk about general mysteries of life and universe and such useless talks. Anyone can ask general questions and pretend to be smart talking hard to understand shit to people that want to believe anything. No, the things i share here are secrets, discoveries of my own, applied things, things that you might consider theories but for me they are based on reality, not just potential truth but actual facts about things i did and managed to understand only much later. Of course i will keep certain things for myself because they are beyond what i can explain in words, or too dangerous in the wrong minds, or simply because i want to enjoy abusing them before sharing them eventually.

The deep secrets I won’t openly share will be written in this book in concealed form, but the concealing is not visual, but logical, structural. I will give you the right seeds to grow in your mind and discover the secrets on your own. In this way only some will manage to do that, but they will feel the things they understand after this are so natural and obvious.


[center]
[size="5"]Stages of balance[/size]
[/center]

A stability point between points can be found between any number of points. Take for example a group of people each with opposing views on a given subject. Eventually they could reach a middle point where all could agree on or give up an equal part of their original view in order to agree with each other. Its no doubt about that. In the same way two opposing forces will find a middle point where they will be canceled or made equal, same way this will happen with regardless how many points involved. Nature however gives as a clue. This balance makes sense as long as they are more than one forces. One, be it point of view, or force, is balanced in itself, unity...and you shall see soon that nothing is one.

Or better said Nothing IS one... that is if nothing could be anything at all, but “nothing” isn’t and therefore it “is” all the impossible things that are unreachable by the things that “are”.

Confused? You should be. Our brain can’t normally handle concepts such as NOTHING or INFINITY but it can assume what they are or what they mean and as long as you understand you can’t understand fully certain concepts you will actually understand them much better than those that assume they know. Its a paradox, i know. For example a child could consider “one billion billlions” as equal to infinity, but an adult would have a more respectful appreciation to what infinity is and wouldn’t give it an actual value regardless how big that value is. In the same way, ignorant people could consider “void” as a space with no air and no particles, sinply because a space without even the space wouldn’t make a sense. Now try to respect the fact that none of us can understand “nothing” for what it is and stop considering it as an empty space.


--


Hey that's enough reading!
... a teaser page from what i am working on now, hope you enjoyed it. It more like a note and might end up different in the final version. It will be signed Mur i think, not Manu, mainly because i lost my fucking mind in the process...nono, i mean, beacause i will use a slightly styled way of putting things, something that only my Mur side of me could do, and actualy its responsable for the discoveries so ... i owe "him" that

I am still having a hard time deciding if i should totally separate symbols analysis from the 8fold balance subject. I could combine them nice, but it would limit the symbols subject pretty much. I am thinking to write something extensive about symbols, both graphical and logical symbols (not sure how to name symbols that have no drawing). I realised nobody ever wrote the things i have to say on the subject, but i am lazy, i cant even move on with the "Eight" subject.. i shall see...

[Ravenstrider]

I want to share some of my fancy thoughts on balance as well... can't let Mur catch all the glory, can we now?

Seeing balance as a mid way point between opposites is somewhat simplifying it. The Balance is made of smaller balances which together in turn represent chaos which is balanced with the ultimate balance...

Um, think of it like this: Movement of electrons around the core of an atom is chaotic, yet follows a specific statistical pattern, and the core and the electrons are balanced due to the electrical forces that act between the electrons and protons. If an electron leaves, the atom seeks the balance, by drawing in electrons near it, and it forms all sorts of interesting things. (molecules, crystal networks, etc.) Now, those interesting things in term create life, the universe and everything else. (Who said 42?! )

Life, the universe and everything else in term create a whole bigger mess of things and unbalance other things and it all, in the bundle with space, time, antimatter and what not creates the big bloody mess I like to refer as chaos. Now, it all seems chaotic to us, but all those things tugging on each other, working towards the small balances represent The Balance in Chaos... The Balance, as I see it is the thing that most people see as God, Creator or Cow...

Balance = God. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. That's all from me. *bows*



Edit: (Four pages?! Don't you know it's 3 am?! *sighs* Fine, I'll read it... But really, this shameless self promoting... tsk tsk tsk )

Edit2: Now I know why the starting value for some of the achievements is one... and some other starting values in MD.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Ravenstrider

[Muratus del Mur]

i can't resist sorry

Order by Chaos .. by ME ) (see all pages)
[url="http://md-archives.com/articles/order-by-chaos.html"]http://md-archives.com/articles/order-by-chaos.html[/url]

Basically you are right in what you say

p.s: 42..oh..yes..

[Ravenstrider]

Ok, read it...

I recently thought about wars and their efficiency in the control of human population... The inducing of chaos might be intentional in some cases, but mostly it comes in spontaniously... Too much people, not enough food, financial breakdown, hunger, discontent, war. Disease also spreads faster in high populated areas, due to the nature of it... Now, there is the conspiracy theory part, but I don't want to get into that.

I thought about other things considering balance, but I think I'll sleep on it and make a large coherent post tomorrow rather than blurting nonsense now.

Also, since I referenced Adams, here's a nice lecture he held, which is in essence a lecture on balance. (very smart and funny, as well)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZG8HBuDjgc

[Udgard]

By your logic that nothing [i]is [/i]one, then would it be that one is not balanced by itself per se, but nothing needs something to balance it. As is, the nothing that represents everything that isn't needs the everything/infinity that is, right?

[Muratus del Mur]

but i already said that, the nothing is balanced by the everything. The concepts are hard to understand and even harder to play with. My balance model is 2481 with duality as a start and unity as a result... now i am having a hard time to find a way to describe what i would call now "the causing result" . what i mean is that things start actually with their end and expand backwards in time to cause their roots in reality. In that sense , one=complete, dual=base. I wish i could say more but i dont want to spoil the best parts before i find a way to write them better...and also to find a way to avoid religious touch because thats probably the biggest pitfall in such things. Think of the words "god is one" for example, it actually means exactly that in my opinion. 1 equals zero and is the counterbalance of it, like in full vs empty. dengerous concepts, very very dangerous, because so far all the "logic" is i may call it so points to one answer too few are ready to understand and might be mistaken with nihilism.

[TTLexceeded]

Balance in sociology and the thoughts of Hegel their importance and my thoughts on them.

Well Hegels thoughts about society is that we can divide it into two opposing forces. The possitive and the negative side as he calls them (not as in good and bad but as in a battery). he suggests that the possitive is the force that wants to keep everything the same and the negative is the force that wants to change everything. These two poles differently from nature are opposing to each other. And they are in a constant war on who will prevail. What seems though to be a surprise is that while fighting they both adopt things from the other. The positive starts to change to attack the negative and the negative starts to keep some things the same to claim that it has won something. Well some people taking in account balance as Mur puts it realised that they should stand in the middle trying to take the advantages of both and use them for the good of the many.

These ideas are in fact what led people to be devided into 3 categories in their views and opinions (i would have said political views but this word is soooo misunderstooded today that i do not dare use it). Basically without using fancy words (i do not wish to be misunderstood as doing political propaganda) Freedom, equality and the thin line between these two. History though has shown that this balance between the two is impossible, it is possible only for nature and not for humans simply for the fact that they think. So here comes the birth of a 4th category that suggests something rather interesting in my opinion (yet never worldwide tested).

The 4th category suggests that there is no balance to be found as long as positive and negative and the people in the middle exist. Simply because they are in fact a circle and that one thing will eventually lead to the other. They suggested that balance can only be found when the circle is "destroyed". What they said is that the positive and the negative and the center are all things that stop the human race from balancing. The most frequent questions asked are these:
What powers that circle?
And how do we stop it?

I will now make an attempt to answer these two questions. This circle is powered by the jailed human minds that have stopped searching for the truth. Carefull here i am not suggesting that there is one truth merely that there is truth to be found. Different for everybody yet still truth. And the more you search for it the more you come to realise it is an ugly one. They also suggested that opposites exist because people believe they are opposites... (long conversation here to explain this view i would rather no get into it) and that freedom and equality are not opposing each other they are actually completing one another.

The only way to stop this circle and free ourselves from this loop is to start thinking differently. To start accepting that there is nothing special about us, we are not unique in any way, and that in fact we are as easily replaced as anything else in the world we live in.

I could have kept going forever but it would be pointless just wanted to share some views about balance in society

Edited February 22, 2011 by TTLexceeded

[Muratus del Mur]

i am not sure where i remember this from but doesn't matter, it matters is so true: everything is as it is and couldn't be any other way different.

Searching for anomalies in a system it became sort of my obsession (for various reasons most related to md history). The incapability of humans to search for the truth you so carefully put as different one for each, is part of how things should be, so that some can notice whats missing and increase its importance. I tell you in short words whats this is about , with the risk of people considering me more crazy than needed. Eventualy, if everybody would understand that nothing really exists would lead nowhere and will destroy this carefully structured construction we call reality. Be it social reality to physical reality, or game reality, the concept remains the same. Once the tention goes of and there is no main untouchable mystery to find, the threads disband and the construction falls apart. Put this in financial terms , for those that cant understand the previous words for what they are, lets say this: Everybody is strugleing for financial independency and dreams to run his own show and buy its freedom (or at least i think so)....or anyway, they dream for better. well these dreams are possible for some as long as the majority is unable to reach them. The rich are rich because the poor are poor, in a world without poor theore won't be any rich either. Existance itself is relative and we living beings, are counterbalancing the very essance of the void, we ARE.

Sadly the continuation of that story is beyond me at this moment. Mainly because my answers hit a wall that i refuse to accept, and that wall sais there is nothing , individuality is an illusion, we are all a big big animal with many representations drifting in the void and trying to remmember
himself. We might as well be characters in a fiction book from all i know. ...well not realy, i have better clues than that, but i wont ever write those as nobody is ready to hear them , unless it is in a movie or a science-fiction book... its our nature, we need lies to accept the truth.

ps : in case you wonder , no i did't flipped , its just 4am and i am tired of treating delicate matters delicately , lol

[TTLexceeded]

Heh I am not ready to give up so easily And you pressed some of my buttons...
By the way i am using bigger letters for quotations from your text because i dont have strength to do it differently.

[size="5"][size="4"]The incapability of humans to search for the truth you so carefully put as different one for each, is part of how things should be[/size][/size]

I wonder one thing. Who decided what things should be and what things shouldn't be? Definitely not me, definitely not god (i hope otherwise i am going to hell for sure ). Now please dont fall to the easy trap (not you Mur i have a better opinion about you dont worry ). So lets see you will say that i am a part of my environment and that my environment is a part of me. So i get a chance to decide what should be and what shouldnt be. Well if you are thinking something like this then i am sorry you will have to start thinking differently. Lets see why. I myself beeing born in a middle-class family in greece, believing in what i believe have exactly 0% on ever getting my views on the TV, advrtised in newspapers, or having thousands of ignorant people writing books about how my views are great etc etc. And let me aside for a while. If you have shoes that you bought the last year you belong in the previlliged 2% of the world's population that can afford to do that. Amazing? Yet true. So what i am saying is that people dont search for the truth simply because they cant afford it. When you got no money to eat then there is no way you can think of problems like equality and freedom and the social structure, you want to survive and its totally understandable. So who created this [size="5"] carefully structured construction we call reality.[/size] ?

[size="5"]Everybody is strugleing for financial independency and dreams to run his own show and buy its freedom (or at least i think so)[/size]

I am simply appaled by the idea that freedom can be bought. I will though use something here to explain this. Its a myth from plato called the myth of the cave.

In a cave there are three people, born in there and shackled with chains they can remove, never seeing the light or other people. Well since they are born in there they have no idea of the world thats right just outside the cave, all they hear is voices they do not understand, they see shadows that dont know what they are. Every day for years. One day one of the three decided to take the shackles away and go and explore the outside world. There he saw other people, colours, heard music and songs. So he wanted to go back and tell the other. So he went to the entrance of the cave and shouted at them to come outside. But the other two people just heard another voice they could not understand and saw another shadow they didnt know what it was. (yes i have faith in my translation )

Freedom is a decision, the opportunity is always there.

[size="5"] i have better clues than that, but i wont ever write those as nobody is ready to hear them , unless it is in a movie or a science-fiction book... its our nature, we need lies to accept the truth.[/size]

Its also in our nature to eat raw meat, have sexual orgies, and sex only in the summer and to live in a society where the most productive female is the leader of the group...
(maybe a bit too ironic but i think you get the point)

[size="5"]in case you wonder , no i did't flipped , its just 4am and i am tired of treating delicate matters delicately , lol [/size]

And in case you wonder its 6 o clock in the morning and i didnt decided to get banned... yet.
(just a strawberry for my morning cake i just baked for you Sleep well i am looking forward to you getting pissed of in the morning, lolz)

Edited February 23, 2011 by TTLexceeded

[Tarquinus]

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' timestamp='1298427108' post='79369'] Existance itself is relative and we living beings, are counterbalancing the very essance of the void, we ARE.[/quote]
Read Hawking and Mlodinow's [i]The Grand Design[/i] if you haven't already. You have neatly summarized part of it.

[quote]Sadly the continuation of that story is beyond me at this moment. Mainly because my answers hit a wall that i refuse to accept, and that wall sais there is nothing , individuality is an illusion,[/quote]
A Buddhist point of view...

[quote]we are all a big big animal with many representations drifting in the void and trying to remmember himself. ...its our nature, we need lies to accept the truth.[/quote]
...translating to a Gnostic one, which the character of Lucius Tarquinus insists is the absolute literal Truth. I don't accept everything Tarq believes because he's crazy and I'm not... as crazy, anyway.

Great thread! Douglas Adams, Plato, Hegel, and the darker recesses of our very own Muratus del Mur: this, for me, is MagicDuel at its best.

Mur: MD = an enjoyable pretext

Edited February 24, 2011 by Muratus del Mur
just added a remark, no need for an entire post for it

[Udgard]

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' timestamp='1298380382' post='79310']
but i already said that, the nothing is balanced by the everything. The concepts are hard to understand and even harder to play with. My balance model is 2481 with duality as a start and unity as a result... now i am having a hard time to find a way to describe what i would call now "the causing result" . what i mean is that things start actually with their end and expand backwards in time to cause their roots in reality. In that sense , one=complete, dual=base. I wish i could say more but i dont want to spoil the best parts before i find a way to write them better...and also to find a way to avoid religious touch because thats probably the biggest pitfall in such things. Think of the words "god is one" for example, it actually means exactly that in my opinion. 1 equals zero and is the counterbalance of it, like in full vs empty. dengerous concepts, very very dangerous, because so far all the "logic" is i may call it so points to one answer too few are ready to understand and might be mistaken with nihilism.
[/quote]
Yeah, I was making sure I got it right =b
The theory of something starting with the end and expanding backwards (is this the result of that theory you have of Mur making stuff in the happen past so it will come to being in the future?) actually reminds me of the belief in destiny/fate. That everything is already fated/destined actually fits with your theory, if we see it the "predetermined" end as being "predetermined" because it is the first to exist/the start, and thus the end which is the past will inevitable reach there. Makes me think though, if there is an end which is the start and the start which is the end, then at the absolute middle point between those, what exists? (the present maybe?) If we think of the process as a straight line, then it is just the middle of the line, but if we think of it as a circle/cycle, then the middle point would be.. the center of the circle?

[TTLexceeded]

[quote]if we think of the process as a straight line, then it is just the middle of the line, but if we think of it as a circle/cycle, then the middle point would be.. the center of the circle? [/quote]

I tend to think of it as a spiral line. Meaning it goes up and down or even stays straight but the circles are not complete. Meaning they dont necessarily close they move forward, its inevitable to go forth as a result of our ability to have an understanding of time and years etc etc. Up symbolises progress down represents going back. History so far has shown that as the years go by the line tends to go up. We started with Kings and Monarchy, then we went to aristocracy, then to democracy (though we had a break with nazism and communism which are both things that in my opinion tend to have some similarities when used in countries, not as theories). So the question is what is next? And the conclusion is that people tend to demand their freedom as the years go by (freedom as a more widened essence than personal freedom). I think considering it a line or a circle is narrow-minded. Its more of a combination of these two (maybe even more than just these two but for now:), spiral line.

[Muratus del Mur]

I'll step down from this discussion as i try hard to avoid kilometric posts and the temptation is huge
I think I made my point clear, very clear in fact, and i will enjoy to read anything you have to say on it. So far it seems we are thinking in the same lines, correct me if i am wrong.

[Rumi]

Essay on dynamic equilibrium.

Content no longer available.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Rumi

[Kay Ingild]

The idea of adding chaos to stabilize a system made me think of vibrating shoe insoles that can help seniors keep their balance when standing (I had a vague memory of reading about this and found more information at http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.php?DocID=195).

In order to stand upright, we rely on constant feedback. Being unable to sense the feedback (because of decreasing sensitivity with advancing age) makes it harder to compensate for tilting and keep our balance. Injecting "noise" in the form of a vibrating insole helps the feedback pass the sensory threshold so balance can be maintained.

With this particular example, it seems to me that the *feedback*, that *sensing* the feedback and then using the information gained, is what allows balance to happen. Does this generalize beyond this example? (I'm not at all sure it would... I'm just thinking out loud here.)

But *if* it does generalize, and if as already stated "nothing" and "everything" counterbalance each other, then where would the necessary feedback come from, and what would it consist of, and how would it be "sensed"? Wouldn't this require some point of contact or method of influence? How could "nothing" influence or contact anything? Would this require something like minds that can conceive of nonexistent things?

But the "feedback" idea may only apply to some kinds of systems so it may not be at all relevant here.

[Rumi]

If anyone had the opportunity to read the essay on dynamic equilibrium and wants to leave feedback, feel free to post below or send a PM.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Rumi

[Kay Ingild]

Rumi, I see you deleted your posts... are you still interested in some feedback?

[Rumi]

Yes I am interested in feedback. You can send me a PM or post here if you like.

[Kay Ingild]

Sorry for the huge delay; I've been swamped at work recently and don't have many brain cells left over for other things

First, I've got to say that I was impressed at the amount of thought that you must have put into your choice of principles. I still only have a vague idea how mine might work together. Your essay inspired me to think about this at greater length.

Mostly, though, I wanted to ask about the examples you outlined.

I conceived (rightly or wrongly?) of your examples as simple circles: after being perturbed, the systems would self-correct and end up in the *same* equilibrium state as before.

However, in all cases, it seemed to me at least *theoretically* possible to forestall or mitigate the disastrous self-correction events (turning the circle into a spiral).
-Noticing that fires get harder and harder to contain over time, realizing the accumulation of undergrowth is the problem, instituting controlled burns (once again, controlled injections of chaos to maintain the system in a desired state...) or mechanical clearing of undergrowth.
-Maintaining and monitoring the levees and environs, predicting river response to a range of conditions including disaster conditions and making sure the levees are built to withstand the worst, maybe even suffering through one disastrous flood and rebuilding the levees as necessary to avoid a future disaster of similar scale.
-Noticing that resources are running low before a crisis starts, securing new sources via trade, strengthening economic ties so that other kingdoms are less likely to attack when their own resources fall low (either because it would hurt their own economic situation or because it would call down the wrath of multiple economically interdependent kingdoms on their head).

*If* it were possible to make these or similar solutions work, could these then be considered new equilibrium states? I think so, as long as they can be sustained, which would depend on seeking feedback and adjusting constantly.

But would you instead consider these to be *unstable* systems, *not* representing a true state of equilibrium, *because* they depend on adjustment/feedback?

[Ackshan Bemunah]

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' timestamp='1298380382' post='79310']
but i already said that, the nothing is balanced by the everything. The concepts are hard to understand and even harder to play with. My balance model is 2481 with duality as a start and unity as a result... now i am having a hard time to find a way to describe what i would call now "the causing result" . what i mean is that things start actually with their end and expand backwards in time to cause their roots in reality. In that sense , one=complete, dual=base. I wish i could say more but i dont want to spoil the best parts before i find a way to write them better...and also to find a way to avoid religious touch because thats probably the biggest pitfall in such things. Think of the words "god is one" for example, it actually means exactly that in my opinion. 1 equals zero and is the counterbalance of it, like in full vs empty. dengerous concepts, very very dangerous, because so far all the "logic" is i may call it so points to one answer too few are ready to understand and might be mistaken with nihilism.
[/quote]

Before I read on...

You may find this of interest.

http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/MadaYHT.html

I find that your explanation of events emanating from the result is an easier (but not more complete) understanding than the one I am developing about these words.

There is one passage I would like to share here.

"The first Sages commanded us not to discuss these topics with more than one person and that person should be exceedingly wise. When teaching someone these topics, one teaches him first what is contained in the beginning of these chapters in small quantities, and he should be able to deduce further details on his own. These matters are extremely deep in nature, and not everyone can understand them. Solomon in his wisdom said, "Lambs shall provide Your clothing". In explaining this parable, the Sages said that those things that are His dominion over the world will be His clothing, namely, His and only His, and not for the many. On this it has been said, "Let them be only Your own, and not strangers' with You", and it has also been said, "Honey and milk are under your tongue". The first Sages said that anything that is like milk and honey should be under one's tongue."

Edited August 4, 2012 by Ackshan Bemunah

[Tom Pouce]

Balance

Balance = desirable point between two or more opposite forces (source Wikipedia)

for me is the true definition, but i would reformulate it to cover a more general case as

Balance = necessary point between two or more opposite forces to maintain the desired effect

that way one can understand either a static balance, or a dynamic balance


and as looking at a system (or situation) that is balance versus a desirable effect, one need to distinguish if its a stable equilibrium, or an unstable equilibrium.

i.e. will a small disturbance of the forces in the system tend to amplify, more and more going to an unbalance, or is the system such that balance will tend to be restore naturally.

and also one can see a system (or situation) asking himself is there in this system, one or more stable points ...

i.e. point from witch a small disturbance would would not change situation, as the system would naturally get back towart the previous balance point.

Take an landscape, one can put on top of each mountain a large rock that would remain at its position, but a small disturbance could have that rock drop on its slopes.

Take that landscape, and one can put in bottom of each lake a large rock, that would remain at its postion, but a small disturbance would not have the rock move from the botton of its lake.

If i desire i can want to have that large rock in mid slope of a mountain, and if i build a support, its reaction, will make the rock stable at that position.

"the nothing is balanced by the everything", to accept that statement as a balance i would need to know first to what desirable effect, and secound how is "nothing" an oposite force to "everything" to contribute to that desirable effect.

"...we living beings, are counterbalancing the very essance of the void, we ARE"

I can accept that statement, maybe if there explantation of how the "void" is a force that is oposite the "we are", and that the "we are" is a force that act agains it, and to what concidered desirable effect. But as it its presented i cant.

Like saying that "there is ritch as long as there are poor", yes its a statement that is logical, but i dont see it as a balance.
being ritch or poor is a state, not a force ... maybe a desirable effect ... if one want to be either poor or ritch. but the forces are many and such as the economic you live in, the trade one know, his luck in finding a gold mine, whom he know, what he know ...

And even then, the desire outcome being either ritch or poor, can be different for some.
One can see himself ritch having 3 wifes, 10 goats, and rice to eat each day
One can see himself ritch having a private island of 10 square miles, with a mansion complex of 50 million, 20 servants, 1 prize wife, 2 concubin, a 1 million yatch, and a private airplane ... And i am sure some can find himself poor having only that.

In the end one can either chose to like or dislike desire outcome. And affect the forces necessary to obtain and maintain it to his the desire state.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Tom Pouce